A Question of Neutrality
I was looking at this thread...
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/20734/marvel-s-characters-alignment#latest
... when it occurred to me that I don't really understand the whole concept of neutrality in the D&D alignment system. I am not a D&D player and the BG descriptions are fairly brief, so I basically applied my own interpretation of what I regard as Good and Evil, Chaotic and Lawful for roleplay purposes. I think Lawful ==> Chaotic is reasonably straight-forward, but I'd be curious to find out if my own understanding of Good vs Evil reflects official D&D literature, and what that means for an understanding of what Neutral would mean on the Good vs Evil axis.
So I regard 'Good' as somebody who possesses great empathy, and selflessly puts the welfare of others before himself. A good individual saves a village from Gnolls not because he hopes to be rewarded, but he genuinely cares for the villagers, and is willing to put himself in harm's way in order to protect complete strangers. A Good individual would seek out and confront those who would recklessly or deliberately seek to harm the innocent and weak, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves. A Good individual would feel great guilt not only if he did something 'evil', but also if he failed to do something good when it is within his power to do so. For example if he was too afraid to confront a dragon attacking a defenceless village.
An 'Evil' individual is somebody who has no empathy for others, and worse, enjoys inflicting pain and suffering on others for no other reason than personal gratification. For example this could be a barbarian raider who steals livestock from a village, and then also kills the defenceless villagers because he enjoys it. An Evil individual would never do something that damaged his own interests for the sake of somebody else.
Based on these definitions, I find it hard to describe somebody Neutral. For example even though Jaheira is technically neutral, I always think of her as Good, because she talks about freeing slaves, destroying evil etc... I cannot imagine her having a major issue with a virtuous idealistic Good party. I can easily see her having a problem with acts of evil. So what is Neutral? Is it somebody who commits both acts of cruelty and generosity? Does Jaheira genuinely have a problem with the world if the Paladins of Helm somehow launched a great crusade into the Underdark and wiped out the evil races of Drow, Mind Flayers and Beholders from the Underdark?
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/20734/marvel-s-characters-alignment#latest
... when it occurred to me that I don't really understand the whole concept of neutrality in the D&D alignment system. I am not a D&D player and the BG descriptions are fairly brief, so I basically applied my own interpretation of what I regard as Good and Evil, Chaotic and Lawful for roleplay purposes. I think Lawful ==> Chaotic is reasonably straight-forward, but I'd be curious to find out if my own understanding of Good vs Evil reflects official D&D literature, and what that means for an understanding of what Neutral would mean on the Good vs Evil axis.
So I regard 'Good' as somebody who possesses great empathy, and selflessly puts the welfare of others before himself. A good individual saves a village from Gnolls not because he hopes to be rewarded, but he genuinely cares for the villagers, and is willing to put himself in harm's way in order to protect complete strangers. A Good individual would seek out and confront those who would recklessly or deliberately seek to harm the innocent and weak, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves. A Good individual would feel great guilt not only if he did something 'evil', but also if he failed to do something good when it is within his power to do so. For example if he was too afraid to confront a dragon attacking a defenceless village.
An 'Evil' individual is somebody who has no empathy for others, and worse, enjoys inflicting pain and suffering on others for no other reason than personal gratification. For example this could be a barbarian raider who steals livestock from a village, and then also kills the defenceless villagers because he enjoys it. An Evil individual would never do something that damaged his own interests for the sake of somebody else.
Based on these definitions, I find it hard to describe somebody Neutral. For example even though Jaheira is technically neutral, I always think of her as Good, because she talks about freeing slaves, destroying evil etc... I cannot imagine her having a major issue with a virtuous idealistic Good party. I can easily see her having a problem with acts of evil. So what is Neutral? Is it somebody who commits both acts of cruelty and generosity? Does Jaheira genuinely have a problem with the world if the Paladins of Helm somehow launched a great crusade into the Underdark and wiped out the evil races of Drow, Mind Flayers and Beholders from the Underdark?
0
Comments
Consider Jan Jansen. He lives in his own world and while he doesn't mean to hurt people, he's not going out by himself to help them either.
Likewise, Anomen before his knighthood is mainly concerned with his own grandeur, not saving lives and helping the helpless. It is only after his shift to Good that he apologises for being an ass and really shows concern for others.
These are far more accurate Neutral characters, Chaotic and Lawful, than Jaheira.
On a more serious note, I think there's 2 kinds of neutrality. The first is someone who actively strives to maintain balance. This is the kind of person who probably would actually have a problem with a bunch of paladins clearing out the Underdark. Then there's the kind of person whose neutrality stems from apathy. They have enough of a conscience not be evil, but don't care enough to go out of their way to be good.
That's my 2 cents on it anyways, not sure how closely that lines up with the actual D&D definitions.
It is important to point out that sometimes a good aligned character is very much capable of an evil and malicious act. An evil character is also sometimes capable of a genuinely good and compassionate act. For example: A neutral good bard of Oghma who gives into his greed and steals a book of knowledge from an undeserving person. Or a lawful evil warrior who protects children from harm at any costs.
A neutral character is actually actually a blurry line between both of these factions.
A lawful neutral character believes in law above all else. Even if that law is cruel and evil.
A True Neutral character believes in balance and karma OR the character simply is not of either persuasion. The character would follows laws if they suit him/her. The character would break laws if suited him/her. The character would act compassionate if it held a suitable interest. The character would act cruel if it suited a particular interest. This in my opinion is my favourite alignment as it gives much more scope to roleplay.
A chaotic neutral character is the ultimate free spirit. They act on their own interests with a disregard to law. if their actions benefit the law, whatever. If their actions break the law, whatever.
What separates neutral characters from evil characters is their ability to feel empathy compassion and love. What separates neutral characters from good characters is their ability to turn a blind eye to empathy, compassion and love.
For example:
1) A chaotic neutral character may have to make a choice between escaping with a valuable treasure and leaving a friend behind, or leaving the treasure to save their friend. The choice the character makes can go either way. However the point here is that he/she HAD a choice to make. They weighed up the options - something a truly good or evil person would not do.
2) A lawful neutral person would hold law above friends and even loves ones. If a friend/loved one committed a crime - even if it was a just crime - the Lawful Neutral person would often hand them over to the law. Laws should be upholded, even if it is a mother stealing to feed her family.
A Lawful Neutral soldier would be the type of soldier to follow orders no matter the cost. If a commanding officer told the soldier to kill innocents, they would do it. Not because they wanted to, but because they were told to. The lawful neutral soldier may feel terrible about the fact they committed such atrocities, but they did it because law and order is the 'correct' way of things. To disregard the order would be against their entire way of being. A lawful good soldier would disregard the order and risk court martial. An evil soldier would enjoy the order. This is one of the many reasons real world soldiers come back from war in a state of severe depression.
(The above is just an example. Remember, you do not have to follow the law to be lawful.)
3) A good example of a True Neutral person would be a rogue bounty hunter. A bounty hunter catches criminals for the law. there is no doubt that this is a lawful act and they would be following orders to an extent in undertaking certain bounties. Alive, not dead etc. Now how they catch the criminal is left to their own discretion. Whether or not they break laws to do is up to the hunter. They may also lead a private life that is very chaotic. They may steal, may gamble and may undertake criminal activities as well as lawful ones. Spike Spiegel of Cowboy Bebop fame is a good example of this.
In regards to Jaheira, it is important to note that Jaheira is a harper AND a druid. Jaheira believes in balance and anyone to attempt to disrupt that balance is an enemy. Jaheira being a harper means that she is a neutral character that fights against evil - usually in the form of the Zhentarim. The Zhentarim are a powerful nation of an evil persuasion who are threatening to disrupt this balance.
Slave keeping is a malicious, cruel and sadistic act and it is likely that characters of ALL alignments may fight against this (...and many who also do not). A chaotic evil character may absolutely despise the idea that people are kept with chains on. They should be free. Free to exact bloody vengeance.
Jaheira would also likely have a major problem if paladins from the surface launched a major crusade against entire species. Neutral characters are much more open minded and balanced in their thinking. Even if most of the Drow are evil, as are Mind Flayers and Duerger - this does not mean they deserve to be eradicated. Not every single Dark Elf is evil after all. Neither are mind flayers. It is not in the thought of a True Neutral person to make this decision. Nobody should make this decision in their eyes. To do so would immediately upset the balance in the world.
I actually think that Jaheira is an excellent example of a True Neutral character. You just have to understand her form of neutrality.
I would say, in a very general sense, that the good-neutral-evil axis is about the balance between self-interest and the interests of others. What in my view differentiates an evil and a neutral character is that the former will value his own interests much more highly and pursue them possibly at great expense to others, whereas a neutral character generally will not (within reason). But nor would a neutral character go out of his way to do good to others, or to pursue some more abstract 'good', at (great) expense to his own interests.